Comments on: Un-idealistic avatars considered “griefing”?

By: Maverynthia

Maverynthia — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 14:55:27 +0000

You could also get metaphorical and state that all life begins as female and then becomes the male. This might be a case of art imitating life.

By: Today’s Response: What role does character selection play in a game! « Quasiternal

Thu, 17 Dec 2009 08:27:31 +0000

[...] but there is still a stigma of creating a character that looks “different.” Read this article by Cuppycake, it describes how people playing in virtual worlds expect everyone to look [...]

By: 8mph Ansible

8mph Ansible — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:19:44 +0000

Heh heh. When I saw the last pic I thought that’s who the character was a rendition of. Though I’m not sure I would consider him popular considering he and Rufus (Street Fighter 4) seem to get a lot of disrespect because of their size. Along with other plus size characters.

Ani8

By: Cuppycake

Cuppycake — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:19:50 +0000

Arcadia, as other have noted here – Freedom of Speech has no merit in virtual worlds.

By: Cuppycake

Cuppycake — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:18:13 +0000

Thank you Emkay! This is exactly what I was looking and hoping for.

By: Teryaki

Teryaki — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:35:48 +0000

I have to take issue with the first sentence on the article. It’s impossible in Second Life’s engine to create a male avatar with shoulders less than 2 feet across. Chiseled jaws are likewise enforced on the male avatars, lest clipping and other visual errors start cropping up.

The shapes also trend (and default, as evidenced by the freebies you get when you start) towards tallness WELL outside the bell curve. At just under 5 feet, my avatar spends nearly all her time staring other AVs in the chest or stomach.

By: Arcadia Codesmith

Arcadia Codesmith — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:19:04 +0000

Freedom of speech includes the freedom to be rude, bigoted and ignorant. It also includes the freedom to come down on people who are rude, bigoted and ignorant like a ton of bricks, and using social pressure as a heavy blunt instrument doesn’t abridge any rights. Speech has responsibilities and consequences. Yay freedom.

By: koipond

koipond — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:53:27 +0000

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

Hirvox :
Brinstar : Like all other private spaces, Freedom of Speech doesn’t apply within virtual worlds. At all.
And therein lies the problem, like I hinted at the end of my second comment. Second Life is technically private, but Linden Labs does little to regulate it, implicitly condoning both “unorthodox” avatars and people who denounce those. And in the absence of rules and enforcement, mob rule reigns. The majority will shout down the minority, making the merits of each argument irrelevant.

Again, this doesn't mean pointing it out isn't something that should be done.

By: Grant Walker

Grant Walker — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:16:32 +0000

my computer isn’t good enough to run second life, but in tekken 6 the character bob is a large fat man who is one of the most popular characters in the game

By: Hirvox

Hirvox — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 07:06:26 +0000

oliemoon : Well sure, but that doesn’t mean it’s not discriminatory.

I don't think that has even been in dispute. I think we can agree to call a spade a spade.

oliemoon : The Boy Scouts of the USA have the legal right to kick out/disallow atheists and queers, but that doesn’t mean their exclusionary practices aren’t bigoted.

Indeed, which is why a major part of that particular controversy was the support they get from state and federal governments. That support in general is in the form of practically free use of certain buildings and campgrounds as well as joint events with the military. If an organization integrates itself into the government, it should be subject to the same rules that the government is (or at least should be).

oliemoon : The OP also never argued that the SL players didn’t have the “right” to shun her friend, she just critiqued their decision to do so. Freedom of speech/association (which in this case seemed to translate to “freedom to be sizeist”) doesn’t mean freedom from criticism.

Nor did I imply that OP did argue that, or criticize the OP for commenting on it. It was my own personal observation of the nature of the conflict.